Re: Rev 20:4-5
Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Sat, 18 Oct 1997 03:58:20 EDT
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:10:56 -0600 David Miller <zdmille1@trin.edu>
writes:
>On 17 Oct 97 at 13:16, Paul S. Dixon wrote about Rev 20:4-5:
>
>} Recent readings in Revelation rekindled some thoughts in 20:4-5. Let
me
>} identify 2 or 3 concerns.
>
>} A second concern, probably not unrelated, is the significance of ACRI
in
>} verse 5. The natural assumption is that it implies that after the 1000
>} years (again, spiritual or literal?) the rest of the dead live. But,
>} does this necessarily follow? Certainly not, if the life spoken about
in
>} these verses is spiritual life. Are we to infer that after the 1000
>} years the rest of the spiritually dead come to spiritual life (and
>} possibly reign with Christ as the first group did)? Regardless of how
we
>} take "life" in these verses, the use of ACRI does not seem to imply
that
>} the rest of the dead come to life. The use of the word in Rom 5:13
("for
>} until the law sin was in the world;" does this imply that after the
law
>} sin was not in the world?) shows that the use of the word itself does
not
>} necessitate this conclusion.
>}
>} What do you think?
>}
>What about the use of ACRI in Rev 20:3? (Satan is bound 1000 years
>in order that he might not deceive the nations ACRI TELESQH TA CILIA
>ETH) In this context it seems to mean that after the
>thousand years are completed Satan does deceive the nations
>again (cf. 20:7-8). Would it not be likely that ACRI is used the
>same way in both 20:3 and 20:5 (i.e. Satan deceives the nations
>again and the rest of the dead come to life)?
Good point. A significant difference, however, is the fact that after
the use of ACRI in verse 3, John then adds, META TAUTA DEI LUQHNAI AUTON
MIKRON CRONON. If Satan is bound for a 1000 years so he would not
deceive the nations ACRI TELESQHi TA CILIA ETH, implying that afterwards
he would be released, then why does John bother to add the rest of verse
3, META TAUTA DEI ... CRONON? Doesn't the fact he adds this suggest it
may not have been necessarily implied by ACRI? That, I believe, is a
significant difference, for no such follow up is to be found after ACRI
in verse 5.
Paul Dixon